|
|
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of
either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your
bidding under threat of force.
Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories,
without exception. Reason or Force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively
interact through persuasion.
Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and
the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal
firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.
You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a
way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman
on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree
on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single
guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with
baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical
strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a
defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of
bad force equations.
These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if
all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it
easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job.
That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims
are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it
has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are
armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule
by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact
opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one,
can only make a successful living in a society where the state
has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations
lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.
This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns
involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior
party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't
constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take
beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in
favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both
are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an
octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.
It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it
wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a
fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone.
The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced only persuaded.
I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me
to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would
interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who
would do so by force.
It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a
gun is a civilized act.
The greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally
armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
| |
|
Protect Yourself and Your Family |
|
Get Your Concealed Weapons Permit |
|
TODAY
! |
| |
|
|
